- 45

- 2

At 5:12 he changes the scaling from 1's to 10's I don't understand how this is allowed. The number represents the number of times the base was multiplied by itself. In the seconds before this, the base 1.00010000 squared is 1.00020001 , 1.00010000 ^20 does not =/= this. Doesn't this trow off the whole chart?

I do understand, or at least think I do, his scaling of the right side. Instead of doing for instance (1.00010000)(1.00020001) you can do [(100010000)(100020001)](.00000001^2) and solve what is inside the square brackets by adding the exponents and the antilog and then multiplying by the .00000001 twice to scale back down. But when scaling you have to add it in don't you?

For instance when doing log 158.4893 you split it into log (1.584893)(100) you use the log rules and then do 2+ log 1.584893. Why cant we do what he did in the video and do log 1.584893 and then multiply by 100 to scale back? Why the difference?

This isn't reguarding the video in particular but log tables in general

Here is one common table

http://turner.faculty.swau.edu/mathematics/math181/materials/logtable/logtable.php

and another

### A Complete Table Of Common Logarithm And Antilogarithm For Mathematics Students • Itechsoul

Logarithms had originally developed to simplify complex arithmetic calculations. They designed to transform multiplicative processes into additive ones. Anti-log can be found out from anti-log table in the same manner as log, the main difference is that an anti-log table contains numbers from...

www.itechsoul.com

Where does the mean difference number come from? How is it derived?

And finally, if you look at the first table I reference (turner), the logs you are taking in are increasing my .01, but increase in the exponent should be decrease over time since the slope of an exponential function is constantly increasing. The differences for the first row are, .0043, .0043, .0042, .0042,.0042,.0041..

Why such a pattern? Shouldn't it be decreasing in every step?